Balzac Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I do find that ridiculous, for all the personal responsibility reasons that I've stated, but I am talking about the owners. I wouldn't say that I expect them to absorb the lawsuits, as I feel that the lawsuits are frivolous, but I would say that I expect them to not cave to demands that water down the game. Man up, and include a waiver in every contract that puts the responsibility for accepting injury risks on the player. They don't want to sign it, they should get a different job. Right now the owners are on a path to owning a powder puff flag football team in the not too distant future because of the concessions that they are making. The issue here is that, frivolous or not, they still have to allocate significant money and resources to defending the lawsuits. They don't want lawsuits at all - that's what the protocol is all about . . . preventing lawsuits. And god forbid if a court actually finds any of them to not be frivolous . . . monetary damages on a class action lawsuit like that could be staggering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ted Goings Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 The issue here is that, frivolous or not, they still have to allocate significant money and resources to defending the lawsuits. They don't want lawsuits at all - that's what the protocol is all about . . . preventing lawsuits. And god forbid if a court actually finds any of them to not be frivolous . . . monetary damages on a class action lawsuit like that could be staggering. That is true, which is why they need to include the injury waivers to protect themselves from players who want to cash in instead of being accountable for the choice that they made to play a dangerous game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ted Goings Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I am sorry for hijacking the thread. It wasn't my intention when I spouted about hating concussion protocols. I am perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree and getting back on topic. I am equally fine with continuing to support my opinions on player safety if anyone wants to keep going. I am not fine with personal attacks however, and I appreciate that most of you recognize that I am trying to make my point out of logic and not emotion. Truth be told, my opinions are what they are because I am tired of watching the game I love get watered down by lawyers and player's reps. It may not seem like it, but in my mind at least, I really am thinking about what is best for the future of the sport. Now, how about Karlos Williams?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReturnToSender Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Please, get back in there Williams! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ted Goings Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) Please, get back in there Williams! Yeah, I'm about to have to start Isaiah Crowell or Ameer Abdullah, because I can't see dropping them to rent Breast Dixon. Edited October 9, 2015 by Ted Goings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 That is true, which is why they need to include the injury waivers to protect themselves from players who want to cash in instead of being accountable for the choice that they made to play a dangerous game. I hear you but courts often find waivers to be unenforceable, particularly when people (in the eyes of the court) have no choice but to sign them. Wouldn't be surprised if courts favored the players against the big bad league in this regard . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) ...Man up, and include a waiver in every contract that puts the responsibility for accepting injury risks on the player. They don't want to sign it, they should get a different job. Right now the owners are on a path to owning a powder puff flag football team in the not too distant future because of the concessions that they are making. First of all, do you, for one second think the NFLPA (or player Reps/Agents) would ever all such a waiver clause to be included in these contracts, especially given all of the long-term, health-related data that is just now starting to surface as a result of head trauma? If you think so, that's just silly...the NFL is a HUGE, $$multi-billion entertainment industry and if you have no players, you quite simply have no league...do you think either the owners OR the players are going to sacrifice that? The owner's have liability, which the players (and Reps), if they're smart aren't going to waive "just so they can have a well-paying job"...the injury concerns and their long-term effects aren't going away, and most likely will continue to evolve into more safety precautions...you can piss and moan about how much you "hate the new NFL," and long for the days of old, but that isn't going to happen, period...plus, you obviously (I presume) still support (by watching, etc.) the "new NFL" otherwise, you likely wouldn't be playing FF, and taking the time to post on FF message boards, correct? P.S. - just as you say the players have the ability to "not" play, you also have the ability to "not" watch/support the NFL if you feel it is no longer entertaining...just sayin' Edited October 9, 2015 by the outlaw 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 To be honest I do not think the owners give a manure about whether their players suffer concussions or not, as long as they perform on the field. The concussion protocols are all about mitigating the risks of law suits. I don't believe the player's union would be on board with any waivers that absolve owners from responsibility for player safety. I am not convinced that the legal system would allow any waiver signed to absolve the owners from responsibility for player safety. I am not convinced it is good for the game for the owners to be absolved from the responsibility for player safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 To be honest I do not think the owners give a taco about whether their players suffer concussions or not, as long as they perform on the field. The concussion protocols are all about mitigating the risks of law suits. I don't believe the player's union would be on board with any waivers that absolve owners from responsibility for player safety. I am not convinced that the legal system would allow any waiver signed to absolve the owners from responsibility for player safety. I am not convinced it is good for the game for the owners to be absolved from the responsibility for player safety. ^THIS is correct... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ted Goings Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 First of all, do you, for one second think the NFLPA (or player Reps/Agents) would ever all such a waiver clause to be included in these contracts, especially given all of the long-term, health-related data that is just now starting to surface as a result of head trauma? If you think so, that's just silly...the NFL is a HUGE, $$multi-billion entertainment industry and if you have no players, you quite simply have no league...do you think either the owners OR the players are going to sacrifice that? The owner's have liability, which the players (and Reps), if they're smart aren't going to waive "just so they can have a well-paying job"...the injury concerns and their long-term effects aren't going away, and most likely will continue to evolve into more safety precautions...you can piss and moan about how much you "hate the new NFL," and long for the days of old, but that isn't going to happen, period...plus, you obviously (I presume) still support (by watching, etc.) the "new NFL" otherwise, you likely wouldn't be playing FF, and taking the time to post on FF message boards, correct? P.S. - just as you say the players have the ability to "not" play, you also have the ability to "not" watch/support the NFL if you feel it is no longer entertaining...just sayin' Unfortunately, it is getting to that point. In addition to the players acting like giant babies crying for flags on every play, the officials are giving in to them and bogging down the game so much enforcing the new rules that it has become very hard to watch. Unfortunately, I am on my way out, and while that may be good news for you, I am very sad about it. The sport that I love has been puscified. Guess I'll go back to hockey. Maybe try to catch some Rugby matches or Australian Rules...still got some real men over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Williams is ruled OUT for this weekend. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rileyrott Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I'm not renting a 3rd Buffalo back........ Looks like Chris Thompson gets the start for me....ugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I'm not renting a 3rd Buffalo back........ Looks like Chris Thompson gets the start for me....ugh. Me either, I will be starting Antonio Andrews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ted Goings Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 You could try the clandestine Russian Roulette circuit in Bangkok. Now that is a man's sport! Which ESPN is that on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Which ESPN is that on? Not on there, but more fun to play Bangkok Roulette 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 You could try the clandestine Russian Roulette circuit in Bangkok. Now that is a man's sport! The poor baby wants to watch real man's sports while he sits on his ass. This is why he is an a-hole in my book, stupid childish comments like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReturnToSender Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Boobie maybe not even be the lead back, Boom might be, what a mess! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) Boobie maybe not even be the lead back, Boom might be, what a mess! Plus, now they're saying Shady has a Grade 2 pull in his hammy and will be sidelined at least another 3-4 weeks, possibly until after their Week 8 bye...I'm thinking if Williams is forced to miss any extended time, Boom is the guy...IMO Edited October 9, 2015 by the outlaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesomebench Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I agree with ted, in the fact you a choosing a risky business. I agree with NFL for mitigation of injuries. The truth is...its all about the money. I used to commercial fish in alaska, made killer money, but risked my life often. I now have a "safe" job...but i sure miss the money! BUT...it was and is MY choice what i do for money, and accept the risks i choose at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcat Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 geez... just shut up already ... all of you. Close the thread and open another. I came here to read about K. Williams status, not this internet battle among a small group of infants. Yes, you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I don't agree with Ted's position at all, but he's not being a raging a-hole about it. Definitely not a tool like the guy from the Foster thread - seems like some emotion from there is spilling over into here. What did I miss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 What did I miss? A user who shall remain unnamed was spewing nasty personal attacks against other posters in that thread. After i locked the thread, he then was sending threatening PMs to them. User is now perma-banned and the thread is now deleted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 pwned Hope it wasn't someone I know. Well, maybe a few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 A user who shall remain unnamed was spewing nasty personal attacks against other posters in that thread. After i locked the thread, he then was sending threatening PMs to them. User is now perma-banned and the thread is now deleted. So you are saying there were no attacks in this one John? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heehawks Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 A user who shall remain unnamed was spewing nasty personal attacks against other posters in that thread. After i locked the thread, he then was sending threatening PMs to them. User is now perma-banned and the thread is now deleted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.